Pro Gun Control Groups Unite

The pro gun control groups Mayors Against Illegal Gunsand Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have just announced that they are joining forces. This merger will combine Mr. Bloomberg’s financial power with the social networking skills that the mothers’ group provides.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America was founded by Indianapolis mother of 5 Shannon Watts the day after the massacre of school children and their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. They claim to have more than 130,000 members coming from all 50 states. During this first year Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America induced Starbucks to virtually ban guns from their shops. The owner Howard Schultz made a public announcement that “guns and weapons should not be part of the Starbucks experience.” They also pressured Staples CEO Ron Sargent to adopt a company-wide ban on firearms in its stores after a woman was shot in one of their stores. Of course they have also engaged in non stop lobbying of congressional members in favor of a more conservative gun policy.

The Moms group holiday campaign includes their list promoting retailers who prohibit firearms in their stores. The campaign also includes an open letter drafted asking retailers who do not prohibit firearms to “go gun-free.”

Mayors Against Illegal guns was created by Michael Bloomberg in 2006. They now claim 1.5 million supporters and more than 1,000 mayors supporting their agenda that includes better access to crime data tied to guns and updating weak gun laws that make allow “criminals and other dangerous people” easy access to guns.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns worked hard to pass the Manchin-Toomey BGC amendment that would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales. The measure fell six votes short of a straight up-or-down vote without the threat of a republican filibuster.

“Gun violence is, unfortunately, an issue that affects every community, and coming together with Moms Demand Action today will strengthen our efforts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and save lives.”Michael Bloomberg.

“I really feel like moms have been the missing voice in this national debate. Sandy Hook was the tipping point for mothers to say ENOUGH !! Gun violence used to be something that happened only in other cities, other communities. But now, every mother and every American knows the fear of ‘What if?’ – What if it were my community or my child’s school?”

136 Responses

You absolutely kill me Lawrence, GUNS AREN’T BANNED FROM STARBUCKS. The C.E.O. asked people to not bring guns in, on top of that he told his staff not to do anything if someone does and it’s legal.

Secondly, and you will have to forgive me if I missed this one, ” During this first year Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America induced Starbucks to ban guns from their shops.” Did they? What evidence do you have for this one? I personally blame all the fools who were open carrying rifles into the stores across the country. I was unaware a group I had never heard of before were able to change this corporations opinion.

Uh, it was all over the news. Fox had special segments on it. Your ignorance of the situation is not how I would gauge the accuracy of information. I provided a link to their website on the article. Go ahead and Google it wise guy.

“Moms Demand Action, which now has 130,000 members, was started by mother of five, Shannon Watts, after the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut. A major triumph included successfully lobbying Starbucks to ban firearms at its coffee shops.”

I went to the website, I read all they had on starbucks? WHeres the evidence they were the reason? I also saw links on you tube to watch fox news about starbucks, everything I watched was a debate about guns at starbucks. Did someone from starbucks give mothers guns credit for breaking the camels back???

Second they are a dangerous organization, they want businesses to ban concealed carry and open carry in their stores. That’s just creating a massive group of gun free zones that will inevitably lead to more deaths. On top of that they even say starbucks didn’t ban guns on their own website, “Starbucks’ new policy stops short of a ban, and Moms Demand Action will continue to pressure the company if there are additional instances of accidental shootings and open carry rallies inside stores.” So on top of it all they don’t like free speech, They consider open carry rallies as a threat. I don’t agree with open carry rallies, but I do respect 1st amendment rights and a businesses right to create its own corporate policies.

I am really looking forward to hearing about Tony’s adventures in grassroots lobbying. For someone who said he’d never, nay, “NADA”, listen to a word I said (my Spanish is a little rusty, but it should have been “nunca” for the word “never”, BTW), I think he might actually get out there in the world and start making waves with what he believes.

I hope you find your commune, Tony, and that they’re all you dreamed of.

Would you like to hear about real lobbying? Or real refugee camps? Or real poverty? Or real gun violence? Or real gypsies? Or really what happens in DC, at the Capitol? Would you like to know what happens in our projects? Or our facilities for the mentally ill? Would you like to hear about protecting those wrongfully accused and on death row? Would you like to hear about my one voice stopping an incineration plant that was to be built in a valley in another country? Would you like to hear about surviving a head-on car accident? Would you like to hear about my spouse shooting at gun ranges with CEOs of gun manufacturers? Would you like to hear about my spouse being a top exec at a national gun distributer? Would you like to hear about my children, a Military JAG, and another a law professor? And was the press secretary for a gubernatorial candidate. Do you want to hear about my kid running for office while in college? Do you want to know that while I lived in Arlington I met lobbyist who worked for Boehner? And ones who worked for Bush. Do you want to know what Gov. Pataki was like at the ceremony when Marines became officers? He was there as a parent, not as a dignitary.
What do you want to know? Because I am telling you, I have a voice, backed by experience. You think I am some sort of nursing home patient…….WRONG. I have 4 grandchildren because I married young. High school sweetheart. We moved and lived all over the United States and lived in Europe. Do you want to know what NYC looked like after 9/11? Do you want to know how many National Guard troops were in my town, because we lived a mile from the ferry to NYC?

That is a brief overview……….ask about Germany. The Muslim exchange student who lived with us. Kaled. Ask about the French student who lived with us. Clemance…….She hunted elk on horseback!!!

Tony, I’d really like to hear about all of those things, they seem very educational…except the car accident. A broken neck, brain bruise, and physical therapy to regain feeling in my limbs as a result of being rear-ended was enough exposure to car accidents for me – I’m glad you survived yours; they’re no joke.

What took you overseas to German and Spain? Business or pleasure? How did you single-handedly stop an incineration plant from being built? What was your opposition to it? Were they disposing nuclear waste? Were the “locals” not smart enough to oppose it on their own?

Although I’m not terribly interested in the accomplishments of your kids since they’re not here to talk about them in their own words, I would like to hear about your experiences in the projects. I only get to the projects a couple times a year in the course of my volunteer work; what neighborhood were you in? How long were you there? Were you a minister doing long-term work? How do people keep the faith and keep their families safe (curfews, etc.)?

And who is on death row that’s innocent? Is there anything we can do to help as a bi-partisan group? Were they convicted of a gun related crime?

Please don’t make bold assumptions about what I think of you; I actually assumed you’re about my parents’ age (early 50s?) since they also have 4 grandkids (also married and had children young).

I really am quite looking forward to hearing about your involvement in grassroots lobbying. I think it will be fascinating and very educational.

“And who is on death row that’s innocent? Is there anything we can do to help as a bi-partisan group? Were they convicted of a gun related crime?”

This is an incredibly depressing question. It is depressing because it is has been proven so many times that some states suspended the practice due to the fact that too many innocent people were being executed. It is depressing that you would not be familiar with this fact.

From his post, I thought he was talking about specific people for whom he’s carrying a torch, not just in general. Those statistics are the reason that I only support the death penalty in theory, not in practice.

I am quoting angry gun owners who felt that it was a virtual ban. I added the following quote for clarification, ” The owner Howard Schultz made a public announcement that “guns and weapons should not be part of the Starbucks experience.”
The only thing shady here are your motives Jessica which really could not be more obvious.

December 20, 2013 at 9:19 pm
In college and most of my young adult life, no one gave a thought to drinking and driving. This was the rule on how to do it safely…….”find the white line on the side of the road and follow it.” Made perfect sense at the time. I didn’t drink, but no one ever asked me to be a designated driver. There was no such thing. Until the death toll began to rise. UNTIL one woman began a movement. And people did scoff initially. It was not until voices became so loud that action had to be taken. MAD would show up at every DWI trial. ( I cannot recall the woman’s name, I believe it was Doris something…Akins?. I will look it up). And they were vocal. DAs were voted out, laws were passed, penalties and fines enacted, and the death toll began to decline. Was that a ban on drinking? NO.

With guns we are at the, “find the white line on the side of the road and follow it” phase. The death toll from gun violence is no longer tolerable. People are uniting and forming a strong voice. And it is becoming louder every day. This is how change happens. You can brainstorm and use subsets all you want. Takes one voice, and then ignition. Liftoff…….

I believe we are seeing the same type of rhetoric from the gun industry as we did with the Beer Institute in 1991. They were looking out for their bottom line and they did not care who their product killed. There is no threat of gun confiscation, just as there was no threat of prohibition. And It was Doris Akins who lead the charge for removing drunk drivers from roads in our area. Were your rights infringed by regulating alcohol? NO. Has anyone knocked on your door demanding your Bud Light? NO. Can you drink 9 tallboys and go out for a joy ride in your Toyota? NO.

“The prohibitionists are on the move … and they’re confusing alcohol issues and alcohol abuse in the war on illicit drugs,” says James Sanders of the Beer Institute, a trade association.
Yet the industry’s strongest critics remain unconvinced as to the sincerity of these image-boosting efforts; and, they say, they are not prohibitionists.
“Alcohol is a drug, and it’s an illegal drug for everyone under 21,” says Doris Akins, a former talk-show host and founder of Remove Intoxicated Drivers, an Albany, N. Y.-based parents’ group ….”

We will see the grassroots movement become stronger concerning gun regulations. And we will hear familiar hype to make you believe a corporate LIE.

So the correlation you’re trying to make between alcohol and guns is that good people are/were using these products irresponsibly and need to be told to stop doing things that risk public safety??

I hate to break it to you, but the good people out there with guns aren’t doing ANYTHING to risk public safety, much less their own, unlike people who drink and drive.

Here’s another illogical rule for you: alcohol is an illegal substance for anyone under the age of 21, but magically on your 21st birthday you are responsible enough to use it without ANY safety preparations. South Dakota was the last state to change the drinking age to 21 and they did it only under threat of having all their federal funding (I believe for highways?) yanked – they realized how arbitrary the age rule was and fought it until they couldn’t fight it anymore.

In most states, homemade beer is considered a food product available for consumption for anyone (as long as it’s not sold), including those under the age of 21. Just like guns, if an individual is taught to enjoy alcohol responsibly, the risk of poor results is extremely limited. When I was growing up we were allowed to drink beer whenever we wanted as long as we didn’t hide it. It was the same for about half my classmates. Oddly enough, it was the other half of the class, whose parents were very restrictive, that had issues with partying and drinking to excess (one of them had 3 DUIs by the time we graduated high school). Didn’t you even admit to having brandy before you reached the legal drinking age? If so, I hope it was your parents who had that first drink with you.

The similarity between guns and alcohol is a simple one: if taught to use and enjoy them responsibly, bad things won’t happen. But SOMEONE has to teach this responsibility BEFORE they’re let “loose” in the world.

I merely pointed out that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving group is a very successful grass roots group run by women who had bee mocked and misunderstood when they began their efforts – much like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America group. Tony seems to be backing that up. It seems to me that you are headed in a direction that none of the rest of us is going.

and I might add that the Beer Institute, funded mostly by Anhauser Busch, was using the exact same technique as Jessica to try and push the “IT’S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRINK. Why punish those who drink safely at home?” “This crusade is an attempt at prohibition”.

Sounds a lot like “The BGC legislation is an attempt at registration and that leads to confiscation.”

“Why punish law-abiding gun owners?” It’s the same damn thing.

In a nutshell Ms. Jessica, INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE DYING by free flowing illegal guns, and irresponsible gun owners. By the thousands every year.

And Mr. White is correct. Grassroots organizations can and do make an impact and bring about change. I will take my place with the woman standing on 12/14/13 at Sandy Hook with a sign that read, “Love Always Wins”.

One problem with your brainstorming is that a.) one must first have a brain, and b.) you think your storm on this blog is working and it is not. ~Tony

And all the rest of your “I hope your parents taught you to drink responsibly” etc, is more of the same nonsense. Mrs. Lanza taught her son to shoot responsibly, now didn’t she???? How did that end? Twenty six dead, twenty of whom were babies.

Tony so because a beer company, or gun company, or lobbying group comes up with an idea is it automatically wrong?

I am specifically talking about your anheiser busch comment, and as funny as it is to me (I was born in 1985), the drinking age should be seen as a constitutional issue. Being that is was constitutionally banned, and then lifted. A guy I work with, who was in the airforce, and trained in colorado talked about the drinking laws. According to him when you were 18 you were able to buy beer with a certain alcohol percentage, then at 21 you could buy “high test” beer, liquor, wine and so on. That doesn’t sound like the worst idea in the world to me, does it sound like a bad idea to you Tony?

Second why can’t you understand that pre ban high capacity magazines are banned now? If I don’t turn them in, sell them or destroy them the police would theoretically enforce the new law and charge me with felonies. My rifles if they aren’t registered can be taken from me and I can be charged with a felony. In the future when I want to buy more “assault” rifles, you know like thumb whole stock .22s I can’t do that anymore. A ban on something is someone “coming for your guns”. It isn’t violent like kicking a door, but often taking away rights doesn’t have to be violently done. Stop repeating your lie.

I don’t lie chris……but do have two exceptions to that rule. “Does this dress make me look fat?” OR, “Do you like my new haircut.” That’s the extent of my fibs. Keeps the mind clear when you are not bogged down by your own lies, or the lies of others that YOU choose to spread.

I want to thank you for contributing your views on this blog, because you have encouraged me to join all of the reasonable voices that demand common sense gun control. You can light your hair on fire and run around like a loon, screaming CONFISCATION, but I ain’t buying it no more.

“Moms Demand Action, which now has 130,000 members, was started by mother of five, Shannon Watts, after the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut. A major triumph included successfully lobbying Starbucks to ban firearms at its coffee shops.”

The below quote from one of the most conservative anti gun control media outlets in America:

“Moms Demand Action, which now has 130,000 members, was started by mother of five, Shannon Watts, after the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut. A major triumph included successfully lobbying Starbucks to ban firearms at its coffee shops.”

chris w asked:
“According to him when you were 18 you were able to buy beer with a certain alcohol percentage, then at 21 you could buy “high test” beer, liquor, wine and so on. That doesn’t sound like the worst idea in the world to me, does it sound like a bad idea to you Tony?

HELL NO. When I was 18 kids drank ‘garbage can punch’. 18 was the legal age. We had bars on campus. OR, Everybody threw in some booze, Fresca, or juice, into a black garage can. PUNCH!

Hey, college kids drink. Insane to think they do not.

Chris, you bring up another good point. Before the legal limit of 21 was enforced in every state, kids would drive from NY to VT to drink……then they would drive back DRUNK. And many were involved in car accidents. This is why we need universal BGC legislation. Like Jessica said, ‘Give your gun to a long lost cousin in Arkansas.” See the correlation? It’s got to be federal for it to work. Guns in DC come from VA. You know that is true. I could toss you a gun from Arlington into the District. Right?

Ask the angry gun owners who felt that it was a virtual ban and said so on Starbucks Facebook page. I added the following quote for clarification, ” The owner Howard Schultz made a public announcement that “guns and weapons should not be part of the Starbucks experience.”

So you take what a bunch of gun nuts say as gospel? I still have not found a site that clearly states Staples has/had issued a gun ban in their stores. It clearly states in your article that they pressured the CEO into the ban. Why do you always get so defensive when someone questions one of your posts?

Alright, Lawrence took the most beneficial version of the Starbuck’s situation and used it to his advantage. He did specifically use the word “virtually”, so let’s move on. What is most important is whether the two above mentioned groups can combine their efforts and have any clout that would affect the stranglehold of the gun lobby. I personally believe that somewhere in between the agendas of the two sides of the gun debate there is some meaningful regulation that could eventually surface. I will put my effort into finding out more about this alliance between mayors and moms, and how it may impact future legislation.

I do see the two groups working well together to pool their resources. The MDAGSA members certainly bring a certain emotional value to the MAIG stiff political vibe. It’s only because I know so many moms that I say I don’t know how long the relationships between the two organizations will last. These moms are on a war path (even if it’s not the path I’d choose) and I think the lip service that MAIG will give them after Bloomberg is out will not be enough for the moms.

FYI – he only edited the blog to add the word “virtually” and another sentence after Chris and I pointed out the error.

“Moms Demand Action, which now has 130,000 members, was started by mother of five, Shannon Watts, after the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut. A major triumph included successfully lobbying Starbucks to ban firearms at its coffee shops.”

It’s just an attempt to put a human face on Bloomberg money, he’s so detested he has to hide behind other people.

He helped to destroy 3 representatives in Colorado, his money did far more damage to John Morse, Angela Giron, and Evie Hudak than the small amount of money spent by the recall efforts ever did.

So, from this point on, Mom’s Demand Action will be known as a Bloomberg front, let’s see how that works out for them. They were always an astroturf group anyways, just looking to gobble up donations, Shannon Watts is just a professional PR professional.

Taking single points in history as being definitive of a entire movement is an exercise in futility.

In past elections the gun lobby could flood a campaign with money and it was impossible for a true grass roots candidate to stand up to it. Not anymore. With the new insurgence of energy and a deep well of finance this merged group can stand toe to toe in any race in any corner of the country.

I didn’t phrase it as well or concisely, but that’s kind of where I was going with the “emotional value”. I just really don’t think the moms are going to be satisfied to be used as the front for the organization.

And you are right about their organization failing miserably in fundraising. Hadn’t thought to check, but since they’re a lobbying organization instead of an educational one, NONE of the donations to their organization are tax deductible (unlike MADD, for which all donations are tax deductible, yet another difference!).

This way of thinking…..the false idea that women are being duped is insulting to an entire gender. When my cousin had ovarian cancer, the bracket I wore said, “Fight Like A Girl.” I don’t recall claiming my donations to ovarian cancer research on my taxes.

“the false idea that women are being duped is insulting to an entire gender” – Tony

Who said these women are being duped? They’re being rather ingenious to use Bloomberg’s connections and money to further their cause; they’ve officially found the “sugar daddy” they need (now THAT’S insulting to the gender). As I said, not a cause I would support and I even have the right “plumbing”.

Wow. “sugar daddy” and “the right plumbing” huh. Pretty darn offensive. Not unlike what MADD endured but it only spurred them on too. In fact these two groups are ideal partners and have formed the type of unity that is bound to make a difference. Have fun now Jessica. It may not be so easy further down the line.

Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America was formed the day after the Sandy Hook massacre of school children and their teachers in Newtown Conn. You charge against Ms. Watts is completely absurd. But it does show that personal attacks is all you have left.

Jessica wrote:
“They’re being rather ingenious to use Bloomberg’s connections and money to further their cause; they’ve officially found the “sugar daddy” they need (now THAT’S insulting to the gender).”

So, let me get this straight. Women are using Bloomberg? Because women cannot do what Jessica? Fight like a girl.

Since when do women need to find a “sugar daddy”? What the hell world are people living in?

I am perfectly capable to stand on my own two feet, thank you very much. And all of my plumbing indicates that I am a woman; I gave birth and I am a mother and grandmother. I’d say that is proof positive. PLUMBING? What is between your ears is what matters, not what is in your pants. I have a BRAIN.

I don’t care if you’re a woman or not. You obviously don’t get that my entire post was meant to be a farce. I’m sorry you didn’t “get it”, so I’ll explain.

1) Women don’t need a sugar daddy; I was implying that they are cunning enough to know a mutually beneficial situation when they see it and take advantage (i.e. Bloomberg needs to add some legitimacy to his organization and they’ve got it; they need financial backing and he’s got it)

2) The plumbing comment was made to indicate that women everywhere who DON’T join this group are being ridiculed for being anti-family. One woman came to me in tears because she’d been yelled at by a MDAGSA member for “shirking her womanly duties” to protect the children. I loathe an organization that would make a woman feel like a bad mom just to further their cause. If any organization is sexist, surely it is MDAGSA.

I wasn’t aware of Ms. Watts’ professional career, thanks for pointing it out. I will also be interested to see their schedule of contributors. When I realized yesterday that they weren’t a legitimate charitable organization a lot of their actions started making more sense. If your assessment of Ms. Watts are accurate, I would anticipate that she’s jockeying for a position in politics somewhere. In that case, the alignment with Bloomberg makes even more sense.

Lawrence, if she was trying to “save lives”, why didn’t she start a charitable organization instead of starting a lobbying group? Many charitable organizations (like MADD) engage in lobbying through licensed lobbyists to get the most bang for their buck (and have the results to prove it), but this woman chose specifically to start something other than a non-profit. Her motives are therefore subject to some analysis. That’s all we’re doing.

You don’t accuse of “attacking” working fathers with kids when we question their motives. In fact, I don’t know that it’s ever been brought up how many kids the men we discuss have. Somehow because she’s a working mom with 5 kids she gets “extra-credit” or is more validated in the work she does? I’m calling BS.

Personal attacks is how the gun lobby usually responds when someone speaks-out in opposition to weapons industry propaganda. The idea is to distract us from the facts because there are so many misrepresentations and out right lies to get through. Since that is the best strategy that they can put on the table – it is clear they are in trouble and that is no BS.

I am pleased that she had a professional career. Sounds like a good fit. And God forbid she succeeds in making headway against the gushing illegal flow of guns, and the continuous death toll due to gun violence we see daily. 300,000,000 weapons in our society; 30,000 deaths every year, and that is not enough for Jessica. She wants more.

And Jessica wants the death penalty by firing squad. What was it you said? “Why not use a bullet because it is cheaper and faster than lethal injection.” Was that what you wrote?

Tony and Lawrence, I had missed it before, but you two guys working in concert is always worth reading. Your comparisons between the civil rights movement, and the anti gun movt was priceless. Do either of you honestly believe there are any similarities??? The gun industry is happy to sell guns to people of all races, as long as they are legally able to buy a gun. They fight to preserve the second amendment, and expand it, even to minorities that live in cities plagued by gun violence who are unable to defend themselves due to restrictive, and in the case of washington D.C. unconstitutional laws.
The civil rights movt was about equal protections under the law, anti gun people want to take rights away not expand them. Anti gun people have succeeded in banning handguns for decades in several american cities, those cities have large minority populations. Pro gun people want to give law abiding people in those cities the same chance for self defense afforded to everyone else, even people in the same state as those that are told they can’t have a gun.
When are you marching on D.C.? What kind of numbers are you getting? In todays technologically advanced world it should be easy to get a movement going, and spread your message.
- http://www.gallup.com/poll/165563/remains-divided-passing-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
Above will show you that 74 percent of americans are opposed to banning handguns, up from about 50% in the 1980′s. Illegal handguns kill people, not assault rifles. I don’t know the percentage of people in favor of banning assault rifles, id bet it’s high then 26%. Your favored groups are missing the plot when it comes to murders. It’s not the guy at starbucks with the coffee and .45 thats a threat. It’s the illegal handgun owner that isn’t eligible to legally own a gun that’s the threat. Not the guy at the range dumping 30 round magazines of 556×45 at sheets of paper. The guy sawing down the rifle or shotgun so he can more easily conceal it, he or she is the threat.

The threat is in the complete refuel of the weapons industry, their agents and mega lobby to accept any responsibility for the products they are creating and flooding into our society. The ultimate right is of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Too often the use of a gun usurps that right once and for all. The fact that the gun lobby uses the constitution as their sales gimmick in face of the ongoing carnage caused by the use of their products is shameless cynicism. And you fall for it. Heck, you promote it.

jessica wrote:
“I don’t care if you’re a woman or not. You obviously don’t get that my entire post was meant to be a farce. I’m sorry you didn’t “get it”, so I’ll explain.”

~ ~ Do you always have to explain your sexist remarks? Because this whole “sugar daddy”, “right plumbing” comment is extremely offensive. It’s kinda like having to explain a racist remark. You can’t.~ ~

Your Supreme Leader, Mr. Porter gets away with it. I guess you think you can too. Makes sense. Do you agree with his comments on Mexicans? Or do those comments also require an ‘explanation”?

The reason a woman with five children who works in the corporate wold as well is worth noting, is because men are not pregnant for nine months. Men don’t nurse babies. You want to diminish and belittle motherhood too? Or just Ms. Watt’s motives and character? You want her to have a charitable organization? Because women are supposed to give away their talent? Maybe you think women should stick to being candy-strippers, and forgo their aspirations of becoming a doctor?

Exactly what kind of “personal attacks” are you guys whining and moaning about? Does that include those personal attacks that constantly demean anyone who chooses not to moan and beat their chest about the “carnage, the 30,000 lives lost each year, the suffering of the families”, on those that recognize the same problems but choose to focus on finding a solution, rather than repeatedly and publicly express their righteous indignation.

Would it include all the snide remards and insults directed at an entire industry who get constantly blamed for all sorts of criminal, violent and insane acts they have absolutely not control or repsonsibility for.

Strange, but it seems more and more what constitutes a inappropriate “personal attack” is defined by the very same people doing the most consistent attacking.

Anyone who takes a positive stance on gun control gets hammered. You can start with the “fake President” comment by Mr. Porter and work you way out from there. You will have to break through your legendary wall of denial though Albert so I don’t hold out much hope.

chris w wrote:
“Tony and Lawrence, I had missed it before, but you two guys working in concert is always worth reading. Your comparisons between the civil rights movement, and the anti gun movt was priceless. Do either of you honestly believe there are any similarities???”

Oh. Right right right. You took a class on the civil rights movement. SO WHAT? And don’t give me this BS about working in concert with LW. ~ Tony

You get a curly cue from Jessica. Seems affective, so I will do the same. She snare hunts. You betcha she does. ~

Look chris, you have no idea what you are talking about. You want men who have a restraining order, issued by the court, to retain their weapons. To hunt down their women/property. Women are not prey. Got that? And yet one the other hand, when Jessica said the EXACT same thing…..not a word from you. NOTHING. I can go back and find the comment. I have a very good memory

So, knock off the BS. Let’s get down to brass tacks. You want a free for all society…….let anarchy rule.

You don’t get “hammered ” because, “Anyone who takes a positive stance on gun control gets hammered”, Lawrence, you get criticised because you take a vacuous stance on gun control. You refuse to explain , because you CANNOT defend ridiculous provisions of NY SAFE, so you belittle and try and marginalize those who point out to you that many of that laws provisions have no supportable logic behind them.

You CAN’T defend the arbitrary decision to limit a magazine capacity to 7 rounds, versus 10 tounds other than because “someone said so”. You CAN”T define what whakes an AR 15 more threatening than other semi-automatic rifles, other than it looks frightening and “looks like” military versions that have entirely different firing capabilities.

You warn of some mystical dangers from a pistol grip, with the assinine logic that because the pistol grip has been proven to be more ergonomically beneficial it makes firing more comfortable, ignoring that more comfortable leads to more accurate and somehow more accurate has become a negative. You suggest a suppressor is a problem, because snipers relay on suppressors to hide their firing position. You neglect to consider that sniping is totally illegal and improper, outside a combat zone. for the life of me, I just can’s seem to grasp the additional public danger of a bayonet mount.

You refuse to consider that these are classic examples of really stupid regulations that do NOTHING to avoid, minimize or correct any of the problems you consistently lament about, and criticize anyone who tries to point out reality to you. You, and your echo, whine and moan about results that have nothing to do, or are reduced in any way by the regulations you propose.

Rather than deal SPECIFICALLY with the actual criminals, gangbangers and unbalanced people who are causing the lion’s share of the problems, you complain about, your focus is directed at people who are not causing the problems, primarily because they are easier to identify, and much more likely to respect regulations, even the really silly ineffective ones.

You rally everyone to grab their pitchforks and storm the castles, but the castles are not causing the problems, so what is the value of your “call to arms”. Enhanced BGC legislation makes practical sense, BUT ONLY if it’s something that will be better utilized, reasonable, easyier to implemnt and EFFECTIVE. Preventing “Strawman Sales”, again makes common sense because it’s a practice designed to circumvent BGC effectiveness and intended to connect firearms with the WRONG people.

Creating really uncomfortable punishments for committing crimes with and addition of a firearm, seems a practical way to discourage firearm use in criminal activities, but only if those really uncomfortable sentences are consistently levied and fully carried out. Stop/Question/Frisk is a proven successful practice to effectively lower the actual rate of violent crime, as verified by extensive statistical proof, in troubled neighborhoods.

The inconvenience perplexing some can be reduced and eliminated by freeing troubled neighbohoods from the control and influence of resident criminal elements that target the most vulnerable amongst us, which EVERYONE benefits from (except of course, the criminal elements).

Yes there are things that can be done to reduce the risk of those things actually causing the problems. That’s where the focus should be directed. Requiring people purchasing firearms to undergo serious, universally applied firearm safety training, is far more likely to reduce carelessness in handling, storing and maintaing personal firearms, than reacting to incidents of carelessness after the fact.

No it’s not ALL firearm regulations that pose a problem, it’s ANY firearm regulations that DO NOT have a defineable purpose that is directed at some specific cause of the problems we all want to see corrected, that has reasonable expectations of correcting some aspect of the problem, that needs to be avoided.

It has been pointed out many times that Adam Lanza underwent gun and safety training. He used it to kill 26 people. Earlier you stated that the BGC legislation was flawed but I pointed out that the gun registration charge by the NRA was a complete red herring. The problem is not the laws. The problem is the lies and propaganda campaign about them. In spite of all your bluster it is about the money. Pure and simple.

You keep trying to connect dots, that are not even within eyesight of each other, Lawrence, with rubber bands that just don’t stretch that far. As you acknowledge, you keep banging the same drum that, “Adam Lanza underwent gun and safety training”, but neglect to mention that Adam Lanza SUFFERED FROM REALLY SERIOUS MENTAL DISORDERS. Which of those two factors would you suggested was more instrumental to the actions he took at Sandy Hill?

You then remind us, that YOU have decided and declared, “the BGC legislation was flawed but I pointed out that the gun registration charge by the NRA was a complete red herring”, but seem oblivious to the reality that YOUR declarations FAIL to impress a great many people. Now if you could somehow muster up the courage to present some factual back up to support and verify your PERSONAL conclusion, you might be a lot more persuasive, but thus far, despite repeated challenges, you have elected to provide NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL WHATSOEVER.

The only commodity that is “Pure and simple” regarding all the evil propaganda swirling around on this issue and these blogs, is the NONSENSE and BIAS provided by YOUR overly fertile imagination. Of course, you could easily slap that assessment aside by simply providing something (ANYTHING) to substantiate your redundant allegations.

“You get a curly cue from Jessica. Seems affective, so I will do the same. She snare hunts. You betcha she does.” – Tony

What does snare hunting have to do with anything? What’s a curly cue? You might be surprised to learn that I don’t hunt – at all – in any form. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with it, it’s just not for me.

“Jessica, I think you’ve done enough here, don’t you? You have followed his instructions to the letter and spirit of his words.” – Tony

I’ve certainly not done enough here. Although you would like to get rid of me, I’m here for the long haul. It’s actually quite enjoyable to suggest a logical approach to pretty much anything and have it rebutted with nonsense.

“And Jessica wants the death penalty by firing squad. What was it you said? “Why not use a bullet because it is cheaper and faster than lethal injection.” Was that what you wrote?”

No, that’s not what I wrote. I offered a solution that I believe would end unnecessary violence with guns. It was made quite clear that the firing squad is something I only support in theory, not in practice. I could have just as easily written that killing every man, woman, and child on the planet would also end “gun violence” since they are the perpetrators of the violence, but I figured that even you would have to realize that it was a joke of a suggestion, so I scaled it back. This new solution would leave guns to inherit the world and, guess what? There still wouldn’t be any gun violence without the people behind them.

“She’s out investigating gun control advocates.” – Lawrence

“And calling 119 mayors. Busy girl.” – Tony

Actually, I’m writing them traditional letters, and it was 109, not 119. Stay tuned for the results, which I think you’ll enjoy greatly. But yes, I am quite busy doing so.

And sorry I missed it, as I was traveling, but a belated Merry Christmas to all…

Did you find those remarks offensive? Why? I figured you would understand that they were a ‘farce’. You know, like the way you feel disparaging and demeaning Ms. Watts is a ‘farce’. I was being ‘ingenious’.

btw, I recall you telling chris w that you snare hunt. I believe it was in your comment about being a libertarian.
Hey, I call it like I see it.

Jessica wrote:
“No, that’s not what I wrote. I offered a solution that I believe would end unnecessary violence with guns. It was made quite clear that the firing squad is something I only support in theory, not in practice. ”

That is not true. In fact you defended your ‘brainstorming’ until you had to take some heat for the absurd comments. Then suddenly you believe shooting people in a firing squad ‘in theory only, not in practice.’ Whatever that is supposed to mean. It is a back peddle and an excuse. That is what it is.

I support kicking dogs in the face in theory, but not in practice. I support gay marriage in theory, but not in practice.

Either way, you make absolutely no sense. No sense at all. In theory or in practice.

“Did you find those remarks offensive? Why? I figured you would understand that they were a ‘farce’. You know, like the way you feel disparaging and demeaning Ms. Watts is a ‘farce’. I was being ‘ingenious’.” – Tony

If you were going for the “foolish show” (aka “a farce”), you certainly got it with your comments. No, I didn’t find those remarks offensive in the least, only inaccurate. Nothing is offensive about hunting to me or the fact that I’m volunteering my time to do some extra curricular research about what the “other side” believes. If it was meant to be offensive, you’ll have to try a little harder next time.

“like the way you feel disparaging and demeaning Ms. Watts is a ‘farce’” – Tony

Specifically, what did I say to demean or disparage Ms. Watts? I observed that Lawrence seemed to think that having 5 children gave the woman extra insight into the mind of criminals who use guns, while I argued that the number of children she had didn’t matter and that it seemed sexist to assume that a woman with a career and children was more intelligent/insightful than a man with a career and children (determined by the fact that we don’t evaluate the number of children any of the male figures we discuss have). You seem to be quite the rabid feminist – it doesn’t bug you one bit that she’s given extra credence for being a mother and a professional when being a father and a professional is all but expected?

I also noted that her recent career change may be indicative of a prospective shift into politics – a shift many politicians make when considering a career change. Would you disagree with any of those observations?

“I recall you telling chris w that you snare hunt. I believe it was in your comment about being a libertarian.” – Tony

I’ve never snare hunted. I’ve never hunted anything personally, although I have been along when others have gone deer hunting, etc. I would greatly appreciate it if you would find that post/quote for me…or did that assumption of me just appear in your head when you picture the gun-toting Libertarian? For someone who accuses others of making too many assumptions, you may want to err on the side of caution as you do it to others.

I do lean towards the Libertarian movement because I find it to be the least invasive and judgmental of the political parties, but I rarely vote a “party” ticket.

“In fact you defended your ‘brainstorming’ until you had to take some heat for the absurd comments. Then suddenly you believe shooting people in a firing squad ‘in theory only, not in practice.’ Whatever that is supposed to mean. It is a back peddle and an excuse.” – Tony

There’s no back peddling necessary. I STILL support and defend that “brainstorming” session and gladly take any heat for the comments, however absurd you deem them. I didn’t see you offering any rebuttals other than criticism. I STILL believe that the plan as outlined would curb senseless gun violence because criminals would be too afraid to attempt anything. It doesn’t mean that it’s the correct path to choose and I stated that from the beginning.

“I observed that Lawrence seemed to think that having 5 children gave the woman extra insight into the mind of criminals who use guns, while I argued that the number of children she had didn’t matter and that it seemed sexist to assume that a woman with a career and children was more intelligent/insightful than a man with a career and children (determined by the fact that we don’t evaluate the number of children any of the male figures we discuss have).”

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. I never said that Mrs. Watts has some special insight into the criminal mind. What an odd thing to say. My point is that Mrs. Watts was touched by the murders at Sandy Hook School and started her group the day after. She has not stopped since and now her group is joining another major gun control group to advocate for positive change. The rest of it you just made up.
Since you arrived here on this blog you have worked overtime trying unsuccessfully to discredit me and now you are trying to do the same thing to Mrs. Watts. If you have a real issue or a point to your comments I have no problem posting them However it is getting tiresome reading your attacks and then reading your excuses that it is not happening. It is all a fantasy. Give me a break.

You indicate that she found a “sugar daddy” and is using the connection to Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a plan to gain political position. Clearly an attempt on your part to discredit Ms. Watts and her group.

Are you cognizant of your own words? Do we constantly have to go back and prove it you? Is this some sort of game you are playing? If so you are not winning.

Any alliance between HONEST, REASONABLE and KNOWLEDGABLE advocates can be beneficial PROVIDED they can resist getting caught up in “one-upsmanship” that, unfortunately, far too often creeps into what often start out as logical and practical efforts.

It’s pretty safe to presume that, virtually, EVERYBODY accepts that firearm violence caused by criminal behavior, careless behavior and other forms of abuse and misuse is a problem worthy of attention and corrective action.

Any effort to correct problems has the opportunity to become either part of the problem, or part of the solution, depending considerably, on how they approach weilding their influence and approaching their search for a solutions. Immediately singling out ANY unilateral approach and demonizing any and all suggestions for alternatives will likely only lead to more endless argument and absent accomplishment.

One thing, as close as possible to being an actual absolute is, “One size will NOT fit all”, and there is no “Silver Bullet” solution. The “problem” is a series of separate issues, each which spring from a direct, root cause for which each need to be considered separately. Some solutions may well offer a general benefit that assists multiple issues, but any general benefit will likely contribute, in widely variable degrees to different, specific issues.

Finding a unified voice to articulate, and focus attention to, both specific, as well as, overriding solutions may well prove to be a practical way to move necessary attention towards creating positive, practical and most importantly workable solutions. However, that will only be possible if both extremes, on OPPOSITE ENDS of this discussion, are kept in a minority role. Those, as well All suggestions and potential solutions should be considered, and either moved forward, or rejected, only after serious consideration and careful review of the merits, or lack thereof, each suggestion offers. From where a proposed solution originates, is of far less importance, as to whatever value the substance of the proposed solution offers.

A single voice, honestly reviewing and considering all suggested solutions and explaining the logic and reasoning behind advancing, or rejecting, ideas can be beneficial to filtering and funneling all ideas towards a workable consensus, IF evaluated fairly and openly.

This is not a time for personal ego, being first, being toughest, or being easiest and should reflect the enormous diversity that exists within our society because an enormous diversity of legitimate usage and concern related to firearm ownership exists within our society. As most have experienced, actually finding “REASONABLE” and “PRUDENT”, as we should all acknowledge, is a lot harder to find and agree on, than it is to declare and explain.

Julie
Even in the urban areas with the highest firearms homicide rates, 7-8% of those committing murder have no prior criminal record. In other parts of the country as many as 25-30% of those that could be identified as law-abiding prior to using a gun to take someone else’s life. To suggest that just because someone may “follow the law and obtain their firearms correctly” means they will not kill is incorrect. To use the comment, “None you say?” is amazing. Unfortunately it happens on a regular basis. I am curious as to why many gun owners believe that anyone who buys a gun is “just like them” and will go on to be a responsible owner. Many previously law-abiding people acquire guns with the intention of doing harm, and for no other reason. There is a reason that guns are used almost 70% of the time when a murder is committed.

Lift up the flag, did I just read your comment correctly!?! So you’re saying that although a good idea would be having everyone have a background check, but really in the long run wouldn’t stop anyone from killing someone with a gun!! Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying from day one…and look Lawrence doesn’t even say a word, interesting.

Fred
Be serious. We can never stop everyone with evil intentions. Every day people in America do horrific things that are totally unexpected. That will never end. In your way of thinking because we cannot stop everyone we shouldn’t bother preventing criminals and the mentally ill from easy access to guns. Great idea. BGCs identify prior behavior, they don’t predict future behavior. Why don’t we just do away with BGCs on all transfers while we are at it?

My point to Julie was in regard to her comment suggesting that people who are law-abiding and acquire their guns legally don’t commit murders. They do. I believe you would even acknowledge that fact.

Lift Up, I’m being serious, I said from day one, nothing short of eliminating ALL weapons from the plant, will you ever stop the killing. I also never said all that could be done should be done, shouldn’t be done….those are your words, not mine.
@ LW, It’s not me that’s “desperate”..because I have no crusade, it’s you…
BTW I do agree with your Church blog…nicely done. Starts with those in the home and with family.
It’s a better way than that inept Safe-Act, which didn’t help three more victims in the month of Dec, in the tri-city area.

Here we are again with the same old “laws are useless and don’t stop crime” illogic. As has been pointed out several times laws on rape, arson and drunk driving don’t stop all of those crimes either so I guess we should repeal them along with gun laws. Of course none of this makes any sense whatsoever no matter which way you look at it.

Let me remind you Lawrence, this is a gun blog, not a society blog. Or, were those other crimes committed with a gun!?!
Here we indeed go again Lawrence, with you needing those reading glasses..I never said repeal any law…and including that Safe-Act…what I said was those laws are not going to change society. They only put people in jail, after the crimes have been committed. I know the truth is hard for you to handle.
I know you and your crusading group want to feel noble and that you’re doing something, but you’re going about it the wrong way.

Laws are necessary for a civilized society to exist. There should be no free ride for the most dangerous product in our society in spite of the huge amounts of profit it generates for a few people. That is the wrong way.

“As has been pointed out several times laws on rape, arson and drunk driving don’t stop all of those crimes either so I guess we should repeal them along with gun laws.” Lawrence, the difference is that rape, arson and drunk driving are crimes. Guns are not a crime. Criminal acts done with guns are the crime. Everyone agrees that laws should be put in place to deter these crimes, and as far as I know they already are. If you want increases in penalties for those crimes, I am sure everyone would agree as well.

The law defines what is and what is not a crime. It is not always what you do, it is also how and when you do it. Sexual relations are not a crime. Starting fire is not a crime. Shooting a weapon is not a crime. However if you start a fire to burn someone’s house it is a crime. Saying that the law against arson is not working because people still start fires to burn a house is pretty darn silly. It is every bit as silly to say that gun controls are not working so lets get repeal them and that is exactly what Fred said. We are in a time that guns have evolved from single fire weapons into weapons of mass killing and the laws have not kept up. In fact the SAFE Act does increase penalties for gun crimes and it also updates the law to take into account for new technology. This in spite of the insane efforts of the gun lobby who could not care less about how many Americans are being killed or having their lives destroyed by the use of their products. Their motive is profit alone and I will continue to do everything I can including using my right of free expression to oppose them.

Matches are used in crimes, should we regulate or prohibit the sale of them? We can all agree that the increase in penalties for using a gun in crimes is a good idea, and that part of the Safe-Act is good as it helps in discouraging the criminal act. But just like regulating or prohibiting sale of matches (or certain types of matches) seems silly, so does further regulating and prohibiting guns (or certain types of guns).

Matches are fully regulated and controlled. They fall under consumer oversight and the manufacturers can be held liable for their products. Guns and gun makers do not. If you would like the same oversight and liability that are in place on matches to apply for guns I would agree.

Fred
“So you’re saying that although a good idea would be having everyone have a background check, but really in the long run wouldn’t stop anyone from killing someone with a gun!! Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying from day one…”

I have said all along, we can never stop EVERYONE with a gun from killing. You are the one that has continued to contend that we cannot stop ANYONE, as you did here once again.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say you are right. EVERYONE that is denied access to a gun by a BGC finds another way to acquire one. Why should we condone that in 33 states criminals have no restrictions on purchasing firearms in private sales?

Typical response. You can not see the silliness of lawsuits against match makers if matches are used in a crime? That silliness is a reality in the gun industry, which is the reason for different oversight and liability.

As for the topic of this blog, I see that the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America group has a list of stores and businesses that they recommend for people to not go to because they allow guns in the store/business if legal in that state. Those stores/businesses do not make the laws of those states. I see no reason to attack a business and create a hatred towards them because you disagree with a local law.

Fred
Enough on “for the sake of argument”. BGCs work. They do not stop everyone, but they stop many. Here is the latest stats on NICS denials since 1998. Over one million denials. I can tell you which states these denials more than likely did not prevent the prohibited people from acquiring firearms, the 33 states where criminals and others simply went to gun shows or on the internet to find private sellers who asked no questions.

Flag, for a minute there I thought you were agreeing with me again, then I saw you were quoting me! LOL Isn’t that funny Lawrence, almost as funny as you keep saying i called for repealing laws, when actually I’ve said the laws we have…all we need to do is enforce them.
Back to you Flag, for the same sake of argument, forget the 33 and have BGC’s in all states. You’re telling me that criminals wouldn’t be able to get illegal guns!?!
BGC’s are not a fixall. Even people with good records and backgrounds can commit a crime any time they want…you said words to that, yourself. I never said “never do anything” what I said was no matter what you do, if they decide to do something, “nobody” is going to stop them.
BTW- I’m all for having police from time to time, in schools…that way when some crazed person might think twice, that maybe those “sitting ducks”(kids) might have someone there protecting them.
We are so lucky that our President was killed with that known wacko standing two feet away doing bogus signs. Our security was first class, don’t you think!?!
So Flag, you just keep worrying about your 2nd rights, while the real answer, of crusaders like Lawrence wouldn’t do a damn bit of good, except make him feel noble and wanted. You have a nice evening, if Mr. White decides to post my comment.

“You’re telling me that criminals wouldn’t be able to get illegal guns!?!”

Far fewer criminals would be able to get guns. Far fewer gun crimes would be committed. Far fewer victims would suffer. I know that means nothing to you Fred, but it certainly does mean something to those who are suffer from gun violence and their loved ones.

Not only do I post your comments Fred I often pass them to others to share. It makes it easier to explain the mentality we are facing.

BTW – our President is still living. Thank goodness it was not John Hinkley or Squeaky Fromme both of whom fired guns at republican Presidents from close range.

Fred
The more obstacles we put in front of prohibited persons, the more difficult it would be for them to acquire guns. In addition, by requiring gun owners to be accountable for properly transferring their guns in a private sale, the less illegal guns that would be available for criminals.

Is there a number of lives that universal BGCs could save that would make them acceptable to you?

Our President is alive only because the wacko bogus signer with a record, decided not to do him in.
@Flag, believe what you want, we have all kinds of drug busts, all kinds of DWI check points…things still happen at an alarming rate.
@Lawrence pass them on, maybe get you thinking, don’t worry I’m not passing on any of yours….LOL!

Of course you would not pass on my comments Fred. Facts and data based conversation is not your style. You live in a world of selfish mythology where guns are God.
Gee I wish you could meet some of the folks I have met who work for or nation in security. Mistakes are made but they have saved our butts more times than you can know. So go ahead and laugh at them. That is what fools do.

Fred
Your use of DWI is an excellent point. DWI fatality rates are down 65% since 1982, the first year they were kept. This did not occur by accident, but was accomplished through numerous changes in laws over the past three decades. I doubt you would suggest that we go back to pre-1982 laws because we cannot stop all DWI offenses.

You missed my point about BGCs completely. Even if ONLY one life was saved by universal BGCs I would find them of value. The fact is that preventing criminals from having easy access to firearms saves lives.

JT wrote:
” Those stores/businesses do not make the laws of those states. I see no reason to attack a business and create a hatred towards them because you disagree with a local law.”

JT, People vote in elections. In a consumer driven economy we also vote with our wallets. As American consumers, we have a choice and a voice in which of the many thousands and thousands of businesses to support. I don’t care if it is the ‘law’ in a state. I DO NOT HAVE TO HAND OVER MY MONEY TO BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT REPRESENT MY VALUES. It is a rather simple concept. It’s been around a while.

During the civil rights movement, people in Montgomery, Alabama boycotted busses; and walked in solidarity, rather than support a racist system. That affected change, by peaceful demonstration.

Yes. Boycotts do work.

My buck does not have to be spent at Starbucks. Plenty of places to get coffee, and I also happen to know the recipe. (water and ground coffee beans).

As I’ve stated, any number of times, I am in full aggreement that BGC legislation, on a Federal level, would be a sensible idea. However, there are a number of American States who disagree with that concept, rendering BGC activity to be governed by State Laws.

Although I don’t agree with the result of “patch-work” regulation, that is our system of government and allowing individual States to make decisions for themselves is a vital part of our system. Rather than insult, demean and try and shame other States to do “our” bidding, the more productive question may be, “is there more my State can do to prevent unchecked/BGCless firearms from entering my State”?

Is that practical, can State laws be written to effectively stop firearms from another State(s) from crossing their border? I don’t know, but instead of demanding others take action, perhaps finding out if individual States, who are so inclined, have the power to effectively stop firarms, or any other commodity, from crossing their border without fully complying with that States’s rules and regulations?

At least it might redirect these conversations away from endless ciccles going nowhere.

Help me out here, Lawrence, where have you, “It is getting to be old hat catching you making totally contradictory comments”?

I have (absolutely correctly) suggested recent BGC legislation was “flawed” based on the incontrovertable FACT, the legislation was DEFEATED. How, specifically, does that contradict that I believe the concept of expanding, in some respects further than the recently defeated legislation provided, FEDERAL BGC regulations to cover ALL firearm transfers, of any sort.

Unlike some, Lawrence, I’m not locked into a singular and absolute path to a solution. The objective, lest we forget, is to prohibit (or at least curtail) firearms getting into the WRONG hands. Federal, reasonable, effective and universal BGC regulation seems a practial and comprehensive method of accomplishing that objective as long as it doesn’t unnecessarily burden those deemed eligible, to exercise their Constitutional rights.

However, if that’s not doable, for whatever reasons, the objective is still valid and worthy of efforts to pursue reducing the availability of firearms, accessible by the WRONG hands, by State regulations or other means to achieve the objective, WITHOUT creating unnecessary regulations and restrictions to the vast majority of citizens who, lest we forget, enjoy a Constitutional RIGHT to “keep and bear arms”.

Perhaps if you were a bit more careful explaining and clarifying the words eminating from your own mouth, you wouldn’t have to spend so much time and effort re-phrasing what everyone else says.

The attack on the BGC legislation was dishonest. The legislation made compiling a registry illegal with stiff sentences for those who tried. Yet the NRA and other facets of the gun lobby beat that drum all day long. Either they are in a state of denial or telling complete lies all to maintain their obscene profits in the face of ongoing gun carnage in our country.

This is a blog article by a very anti gun control person. He describes himself as the following: “David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.” I am not saying that his charges are not true. However I am not saying that I believe him either. Under these circumstances I do believe it to be wise to wait and see how this evolves.